I gather THC:CBD:CBN ratios can result in slightly differing highs, but none of that is linked in any consistent or reliable way to strains, right? It's my understanding those factors are far more linked to how the cannabis was grown and cared for than the plant's exact genetics.
And terpenes are not known to be psychoactive, yet a lot of people say they can influence the high to be either more sedating or stimulating. Is that true? My gut feeling is that's also bullshit and they only effect the smell and taste. I could see an argument that they indirectly influence the high in the same way your set and setting influences it, but certainly not in any consistent, reliable way, and especially not between different people.
My experience with weed, regardless of the terpene profile, strain, or indica/sativa has been that it's all basically the same high and there is not a soul on this Earth who could smoke some flower in a blind test and tell you what the strain is or even just if it's an indica or sativa.
Terpenes were never talked about with weed even a decade ago.
Different strains have different mixes of cannabinoids and the different mixes can get you different types of high. Indca/sativa dominant strains used to be a classification for different types of highs. The focus with crossbreeding of weed was almost exclusively THC content till legalization started happening. Then the other cannabinoids have started to get more attention as growers tried to make their product stand out. Nowadays everything is bred to be so strong there really isn't a difference. Terpenes are just the new way to differentiate one product from another and claim superiority.
I used to be able to identify a half dozen strains of weed by taste. Heck I could pick out Purple Kush from 50m back in the day. I'd guess you cant tell the difference because you don't have enough experience and tolerance to pick up on the differences.